AIM

MSN

Website URL

ICQ

Yahoo

Jabber

Skype

Location

Interests

So its pretty obvious that forts are simply to strong. 4 mortar brings firing 10mins without missing and taking fort fire while doing it because forts have grater range than mortars did less than 1/4 of damage. in a shallow water pb this is simply insane. even for a deep water this is still crazy. the simple proof is that there hasn't been a single port battle where a fortress has been destroyed. it requires way to many resources in a pb to even have a chance to destroy it.
two suggestions.
1. take forts out of shallow water pbs and only let them have towers.
2. forts need an hp nerf or a mortar brig buff on damage. 30mins to destroy one fort is to much for 4 mortar brigs.

I would like forts to not help an enemy if that enemy is the one that clicks attack. I get tagged too many times by trolls with no intent of fighting, that run straight to a fort.
Most recent incidents include:
British Rattvisan tagging my Christian when I sailed past the fort at Carlisle. (obviously no intent of fighting)
Russian LGV I chased towards Cap Francais started to tag my Wasa when they got in range of the fort. (obviously no intent of fighting)
Spanish Cerberus tagging my Wasa outside Remedios when I chased them too close to the forts. (obviously no intent of fighting)

So we had a port battle at Marsh Harbor tonight and I notice the defense goes down and suddenly the other team has 250 points. Even at full sales we would of just engaged them at this time. Than the second one goes down (they had two mortar brigs) and it was at 500 points.
@admin is this how it's suppose to be with two AI fort/tower kills the Attackers had 500 points. Defenders have no real way to counter this. I remember the old points where 75 for Towers and 150 for forts.....250 is way to high. The battle was over really fast cause of this. While we would of lost the brawl in the long run getting over half points just for killing two useless for the most part AI that don't really help much as there range is two short is bad.;
I'm just wondering if they are suppose to be worth so many points than they need to be doing more in defense or defenders need something else as this right now gives Attackers way to much a point advantage in the fights. Again we would of lost to the brawl (as neither us had complete control of two circles for long), but that 500 points straight off made the battle a very short one.
Maybe the towers and forts need to be brought back down in points when killed as they should never be worth so many points you can win off just destroying them.

We don't see any activity from the land in this game. Presumably there would be military men stationed at each port, at every tower. Every time an unknown man o' war passed within sight it was likely marked down and sent as a letter to warn the admiralty. This is my suggestion.
Ships within sight of a enemy port, forts, or towers, there's a % that they will be spotted within X time, percentage increasing with how many ships are spotted within that time.
So say if 1 ship passes within sight of the people at the tower, there's something like an 11% chance that that nation will be warned of a ship within 10 minutes or so (a delay to simulate the time it takes for a message to travel by horse or small boat)
If 20 ships pass within sight of a port, there's a 90% chance that the message will be broadcasted.
Basically unless you have players themselves posted at these ports dedicated to typing away on nation chat then people easily go unnoticed, no one finds them and no PVP takes place. The forts, towers and port towers are there for exactly this reason. Take the annoying step of players having to do these entities jobs and make it a feature. Then more PVP can take place and less searching. Just imagine as a player sitting in port getting a message that 25+ enemy ships are about to converge on x port. Yeah I would shite myself in excitement.
Pic related, the view from a tower where men are posted for this exact reason

I have been and have seen on stream a considerable amount of PBs so far to come to this conclusion:
Forts and towers are usually used to make some fast points for the attacker, the defender usually have no time to stop the enemy mortar from killing some fortifications. As a consequence, we have seen several times the "mortar brig duel", which consists on bringing a mortar brig to kill the enemy one. Yes, a small ship able to destroy another one at high range.
Not only did I see the mortar brig duels, but also the sniper aboard the mortar brig. This player is able to dimast lineships or even sink ships because the mortar ball usually hits the structre bar.
A mortar brig, controled by an average player, can destroy a tower in only a few shoots and forts in less than 5 minutes. When I see this happening my world as an archittect and history lover breaks into pieces, what would have happened in reality if Cartagena de Indias had the same paper forts as NA?
Towers can be destroyed by the broadside of some wasas and the wasa receiving little damage in return. In one stream (Reverse), even a surprise killed a tower. Forts are harder to kill by broadside fire but some of the big ships like first rates can.
Except in shallow water PBs, the fortifications are mostly useless for the defender. First of all, their fire does almost nothing to the enemy ships unless they are at close range. Secondly, the defender must be "really worried" about the mortar brigs due to their ability to score a lot of points in little time. And lastly, most of the forts placements arent linked to protect circles, which makes easy to the attacker to avoid them.
My proposal is rather simple:
_Buff HP and thickness of fortifications, reload, penetration and effective range.
_Nerf perk and skillbook related to mortar brigs. Mortar brigs cant be so accurate.
_Nerf reload and damage on the mortar gun. Their firing rate is high for the damage they can deliver.
Discuss.

Why do the forts not shoot in port battles to fully cover cap circles? In most port battles the circles are hardly covered, why is this the case? It does not make sense that the cap circles are outside of the forts' defensive zone of control. You build forts to defend important things. not the fish in the sea.

Wanted to discuss the strength and damage rate or town forts after last nights embarassing debacle.
On Tuesday The Spanish and French (25 ships ,1st-3rd rates)came to Kingston for a late night fight.Unfortunately England was only able to muster a small defence ,of mostly 4th-5th rate ships and 1 Black Painted Santisma. Forming a line at the harbour mouth.The Spanish/French waited till the wind was due north then tagged a passing ai force.England rapidly fell back towards Kingstons Forts....
However,the forts were sadly ineffectual,providing limited damage,and coordination against the enemy fleet.It was disappointing,the forts provided irregular shots,and very low damage against the attackers.It Would also appear that the fort that lies to the left of the harbour dosent work,i didnt see it fire once even when ships were close.They need to improve the forts a.i and introduce targetted volleys.

Hi there,
Would it be possible to get Charleston's forts onto Sullivan's Island and the island I presume is meant to be where Fort Sumter is? Not sure about the placement of other forts (maybe Beaufort needs a rework) but Charleston is one place I know could use a fix. No use having them so far inland where nobody sails...
Cheers--

Last week I discussed the idea of that the forts would be leveled by players, on the Dutch TS, after having some good discusions about it I thought it was time to right it all down so here it is.
As we all know there are bigger forts comming soon, there are rumours that they are going to depend of the type of port (Shallow/deepwater/regional capital).
I had a diffrent idea:
Let the forts be upped by players, every port starts with the standard 5 martello towers.
After the players of the nation inserting X amount of rescources (Stone, wood, guns etc.) the harbour defense would go to level 2, this can be 1 bigger fort supported by 3 martello towers or 2 bigger ones, we will have to balance that out by testing.
then you can up your defense to level 3 and so on and I think the top level should be 1 El Morro fort to defend your harbour.
The land sigthed patch will make this very intresting.
Main arguments:
1. It fits in with the player based economy we are trying to go for.
2. By letting them be build by players the forts occur where they are needed (at the front line) and not where they are big and shiny but useless.
3. Makes nation effort more inportant and stimulates clans to work together to construct a fort.
Optional:
I am not sure how the fort will end up after the harbour is captured by an enemy nation, I have two ideas on this but feel free to post your own.
1. Total destruction after a harbour is captured.
2. The Fort can be repaired by the conqueror but at a very high cost.
Also there is an option to let the players repair the (damaged) fort with rescources, so the forts are rescource intensive, but this is just optional, let me know how you think about it.
If you got any better ideas then please write them down and post them here, If you think this idea is total nonsense then write a better plan down in your hate comment please.